skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Pancreatic cancer planning: Complex conformal vs modulated therapies

Abstract

To compare the roles of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric- modulated arc therapy (VMAT) therapy as compared to simple and complex 3-dimensional chemoradiotherpy (3DCRT) planning for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. In all, 12 patients who received postoperative radiotherapy (8) or neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (4) were evaluated retrospectively. Radiotherapy planning was performed for 4 treatment techniques: simple 4-field box, complex 5-field 3DCRT, 5 to 6-field IMRT, and single-arc VMAT. All volumes were approved by a single observer in accordance with Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Pancreas Contouring Atlas. Plans included tumor/tumor bed and regional lymph nodes to 45 Gy; with tumor/tumor bed boosted to 50.4 Gy, at least 95% of planning target volume (PTV) received the prescription dose. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for multiple end points, treatment planning, and delivery time were assessed. Complex 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT plans significantly (p < 0.05) decreased mean kidney dose, mean liver dose, liver (V{sub 30}, V{sub 35}), stomach (D{sub 10}%), stomach (V{sub 45}), mean right kidney dose, and right kidney (V{sub 15}) as compared with the simple 4-field plans that are most commonly reported in the literature. IMRT plans resulted in decreased mean liver dose, liver (V{sub 35}), and left kidneymore » (V{sub 15}, V{sub 18}, V{sub 20}). VMAT plans decreased small bowel (D{sub 10}%, D{sub 15}%), small bowel (V{sub 35}, V{sub 45}), stomach (D{sub 10}%, D{sub 15}%), stomach (V{sub 35}, V{sub 45}), mean liver dose, liver (V{sub 35}), left kidney (V{sub 15}, V{sub 18}, V{sub 20}), and right kidney (V{sub 18}, V{sub 20}). VMAT plans significantly decreased small bowel (D{sub 10}%, D{sub 15}%), left kidney (V{sub 20}), and stomach (V{sub 45}) as compared with IMRT plans. Treatment planning and delivery times were most efficient for simple 4-field box and VMAT. Excluding patient setup and imaging, average treatment delivery was within 10 minutes for simple and complex 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT treatments. This article shows significant improvements in 3D plan performance with complex planning over the more frequently compared 3- or 4-field simple 3D planning techniques. VMAT plans continue to demonstrate potential for the most organ sparing. However, further studies are required to identify if dosimetric benefits associated with inverse optimized planning can be translated into clinical benefits and if these treatment techniques are value-added therapies for this group of patients with cancer.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [1];  [3];  [1];  [1]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI (United States)
  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22577868
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Dosimetry; Journal Volume: 41; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2016 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; 62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; COMBINED THERAPY; COMPLEXES; KIDNEYS; LIVER; LYMPH; LYMPH NODES; NEOPLASMS; PANCREAS; PATIENTS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; STOMACH

Citation Formats

Chapman, Katherine L., Witek, Matthew E., Chen, Hongyu, Showalter, Timothy N., Bar-Ad, Voichita, and Harrison, Amy S., E-mail: amy.harrison@jefferson.edu. Pancreatic cancer planning: Complex conformal vs modulated therapies. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.10.002.
Chapman, Katherine L., Witek, Matthew E., Chen, Hongyu, Showalter, Timothy N., Bar-Ad, Voichita, & Harrison, Amy S., E-mail: amy.harrison@jefferson.edu. Pancreatic cancer planning: Complex conformal vs modulated therapies. United States. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.10.002.
Chapman, Katherine L., Witek, Matthew E., Chen, Hongyu, Showalter, Timothy N., Bar-Ad, Voichita, and Harrison, Amy S., E-mail: amy.harrison@jefferson.edu. Fri . "Pancreatic cancer planning: Complex conformal vs modulated therapies". United States. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.10.002.
@article{osti_22577868,
title = {Pancreatic cancer planning: Complex conformal vs modulated therapies},
author = {Chapman, Katherine L. and Witek, Matthew E. and Chen, Hongyu and Showalter, Timothy N. and Bar-Ad, Voichita and Harrison, Amy S., E-mail: amy.harrison@jefferson.edu},
abstractNote = {To compare the roles of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric- modulated arc therapy (VMAT) therapy as compared to simple and complex 3-dimensional chemoradiotherpy (3DCRT) planning for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. In all, 12 patients who received postoperative radiotherapy (8) or neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (4) were evaluated retrospectively. Radiotherapy planning was performed for 4 treatment techniques: simple 4-field box, complex 5-field 3DCRT, 5 to 6-field IMRT, and single-arc VMAT. All volumes were approved by a single observer in accordance with Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Pancreas Contouring Atlas. Plans included tumor/tumor bed and regional lymph nodes to 45 Gy; with tumor/tumor bed boosted to 50.4 Gy, at least 95% of planning target volume (PTV) received the prescription dose. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for multiple end points, treatment planning, and delivery time were assessed. Complex 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT plans significantly (p < 0.05) decreased mean kidney dose, mean liver dose, liver (V{sub 30}, V{sub 35}), stomach (D{sub 10}%), stomach (V{sub 45}), mean right kidney dose, and right kidney (V{sub 15}) as compared with the simple 4-field plans that are most commonly reported in the literature. IMRT plans resulted in decreased mean liver dose, liver (V{sub 35}), and left kidney (V{sub 15}, V{sub 18}, V{sub 20}). VMAT plans decreased small bowel (D{sub 10}%, D{sub 15}%), small bowel (V{sub 35}, V{sub 45}), stomach (D{sub 10}%, D{sub 15}%), stomach (V{sub 35}, V{sub 45}), mean liver dose, liver (V{sub 35}), left kidney (V{sub 15}, V{sub 18}, V{sub 20}), and right kidney (V{sub 18}, V{sub 20}). VMAT plans significantly decreased small bowel (D{sub 10}%, D{sub 15}%), left kidney (V{sub 20}), and stomach (V{sub 45}) as compared with IMRT plans. Treatment planning and delivery times were most efficient for simple 4-field box and VMAT. Excluding patient setup and imaging, average treatment delivery was within 10 minutes for simple and complex 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT treatments. This article shows significant improvements in 3D plan performance with complex planning over the more frequently compared 3- or 4-field simple 3D planning techniques. VMAT plans continue to demonstrate potential for the most organ sparing. However, further studies are required to identify if dosimetric benefits associated with inverse optimized planning can be translated into clinical benefits and if these treatment techniques are value-added therapies for this group of patients with cancer.},
doi = {10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.10.002},
journal = {Medical Dosimetry},
number = 2,
volume = 41,
place = {United States},
year = {Fri Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Fri Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}